Although they were typical before 1860, it was only during the Civil War that oral arguments were heard in appels courts. These courts reacted with the same surprise that the judges had to say in court when they first faced oral arguments, and they sometimes overturned case-based convictions. In Canada, the courts always have the final say on conviction. Nevertheless, oral arguments have become an accepted part of the criminal justice system, although judges and crown counsel are often reluctant to characterize it as such. In most Canadian criminal trials, the Crown has the option of recommending a lighter sentence than it would seek after a guilty verdict in exchange for an admission of guilt.  In Estonia, arguments were introduced in the 1990s: the sentence is reduced in exchange for confessions and avoiding most trials. Arguments are permitted for offences punishable by more than four years in prison. Normally, a 25% discount is granted. [Citation required] Judges are not required to impose a sentence in a joint submission and failure to respect a common submission by a judge is not, in itself, grounds for reducing sentences on appeal. However, if a judge does not routinely respect the common words, that judge would impair the Crown`s ability to meaningfully induce the accused to plead guilty. Defence counsel would be detained if they were considered uns valuable to a particular judge, which would lead to otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will generally impose a sentence as part of a joint filing. Some aspects of the U.S. justice system are used to promote oral arguments. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system places judges in a passive role in which they do not have independent access to information that allows them to judge the strength of the accused`s trial. The prosecutor and the defence can thus control the outcome of a case through oral arguments. The court must approve a plea as in the interests of justice.  A plea (plea or plea) is an agreement in criminal proceedings between the prosecutor and the accused, in which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a concession from the prosecutor or to invoke a particular charge. This may mean that the accused will plead guilty in exchange for the dismissal of other charges on a lesser charge or one of the multiple counts; or it may mean that the accused will plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.  In 2009, in a case concerning whether the evidence of a plea in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Hejesteret) unanimously ruled that the oral arguments were excellent. under Danish law, but that witnesses can testify independently in the specific case (provided that the trial considers the possibility to be false or, at the very least, influenced by the advantages of the plea).  The Supreme Court, however, indicated that Danish law contained mechanisms similar to oral arguments, such as .B.